User talk:JzG/Archive 169

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Question

If you are allowed to post in a closed section, am I also allowed to do that? Or do admins have special rights to do that? KFvdL (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A closure is an action by one editor. It can be challenged, but when challenged by a conflicted single-purpose account it is more likely to be restored. So: you can try, but I don't advise it. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I saw that you removed the closure of the section that was closed by Roxy. I missed that. Sorry about that. I think if you would close it again and thus allow yourself to respond while blocking another editor to respond it would be frowned upon.... KFvdL (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Refspam?

Hi JzG, writing to you as an editor with experience in academic spam. these edits don't on the face of it look terribly helpful, but it could be good-faith ineptitude. They seem to be adding links to "Management Science Letters" articles, which isn't a journal I know anything about. From my phone on the train it's a bit tricky to investigate further, though I see that it's recent and open-access. The journal articles might be relevant to the WP articles, or might not. What would you suggest doing in this specific / a general similar case? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's refspam for sure. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I see that it's already been cleaned up. Thanks for the advice: I shall be a bit bolder next time! Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, or ask again, a friendly talk page stalker may well help out, too. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

McCarthy

I have replied on my talk page, but I see your edit has already been reverted by MPS1992, who agreed with my reasoning per WP:BLP. For your convenience, here is my reply to your implying that my edit was in any way 'taking sides' or had anything to do with me being 'familiar with editing about autism' - the topic is irrelevant:
"Whether I am familiar with a topic or not had no bearing on anything - does a quote that is attributed to the subject of a BLP article have a reliable source to confirm the person said it or not? That's what matters. I did not state any opinion either way, nor did I say anyone else did - I simply fixed issues introduced by a new editor who clearly had strong opinions (that did not belong on Ms. McCarthy's page to begin with) and wished to introduce them into the living person article. It is also why I did not include the 'vulnerable' qualifier - it is not neutral, or unbaised a term. I think perhaps you did not look at the edits from the person who was introducing the issues; all I did is add a PBS reference he wished added, and clarify what he continued to try to introduce into the article repeatedly - the terminology she stated in two interviews that she preferred - attributing it to her in quotations. I did so in an unbiased, sourced way, moved the other source that confirms it up to that line, and removed a link to someone's random Facebook page that should not have been there in the first place (and was re-introduced by you reverting my fix.) Please take another look at the actual diffs before assuming I was not fixing errors introduced by others. Cheers Ariel♥Gold 01:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

On further digging, it appears that the odd facebook link was a strange way of linking to the author of the last reference from The Washington Post. (I'd suggest putting a link to that person's actual Washington Post bio page instead of her personal Facebook page, if necessary.} I'd also like to clarify that you reverted the very thing I had done - your edit summary says this: " No. McCarthy claims not to be anti-vaccine, but reliable indpendent sources say she is, and the weasellry about "vulnerbale children" is just that: weasellyry. Vaccines do not cause autism.". I did not approve the pending edit from the person claiming she isn't anti, instead added the source that shows that is what the press does categorize her as, but also has her claims to the contrary, with the quote of her "preferred term" - it is not claiming one is right, or wrong. It's simply what she said in response to the interviewer. I removed the inappropriate word 'vulnerable' from the previous editor's pending edits, and I reminded him that his views on the subject were not appropriate for her page. Additionally, I removed his edits that added comments about what 'Most parents' think - since it was not appropriate for her article, and I suggested he open a dialog on the Autism talk page about such things if he feels they are incorrect on Wikipedia. So I'm quite confused as to how you can accuse me of being 'weasellry', or biased in any way in my rejection of the controversial pending edits from CMTBard. I'm sure if you do take a thorough look through his attempted edits and my review of them, you will see my addition of the PBS ref with her quote, and moving of the other ref up to another line, did not introduce any issues to the article in question. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 01:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you notice that the WaPo source is a series of uncritically repeated antivax claims made by McCarthy? It's not a secondary source, it just parrots her propaganda. Did you notice that the Frontline source is an unattributed interview (no interviewer named) that parrots her propaganda without challenging it? Did you notice that the claims have been strongly rebutted, as per the sources in the following sentence, which sources are sufficent to cover the fact of her lying about not being anti-vax? I don't blame you or anyone else, by the way - this is absolutely normal in articles on antivax tropes. Antivaxers are adept in pretending to be "pro safe vaccine" or "pro parental choice" because they know that being anti-vaccine is a fringe position, but these arguments are 100% pretextual, as all the reliable independent sources show. When you ask them what they mean by a "safe vaccine", their response is either incoherent or involves unicorns and flying pigs. Especially the demand for a randomised controlled trial, which would never pass an ethics panel because it would mean exposing children to deadly diseases without a known effective protection. It would be like an RCT of sunscreen as a protection against skin cancer: we already know that vaccines save lives, so exposing people to deadly diseases to satisfy the post-hoc rationales of people seeking to excuse a quasi-religious hatred of vaccines does not amount to a scientific question sufficient to risk life and health of children. Especially since the monomaniac focus of the likes of McCarthy is autism, which has been conclusively shown not to be in any way related to vaccines. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The only source I added was PBS. If you are going to try to tell me that PBS is no longer considered a 'reliable source' then Wikipedia surely has changed far more than I imagined. And that is the only source that I used for a four word quote. Again I think you are getting hung up by a topic, and not my edit. Even here - you are expounding about the topic - and not my edit. I am an ICU nurse and I have full knowledge of the topic, but I neither wish to discuss it with you, nor do I think it appropriate that as an Admin, you go on and on about it here as it relates to my edit - it has absolutely nothing to do with how one edits Wikipedia. Please let me know if PBS is no longer considered a reliable source. If it isn't - well then I may need to reconsider my decision to return to editing. And I strongly suggest that you remove yourself from editing on this topic, as you are clearly unable to be objective. The fact that you felt you had to type out an entire paragraph about autism, rather than discuss my adding a source to an article about a person, shows you are not able to be unbiased. I could care less if the topic were Autism, the Air Force, or Aliens. I treat it the same - is the source reliable? Did the subject say the words according to the reliable source? Then it is absolutely proper to attribute the quotation to the subject in an article. In this case it wasn't even so much a quotation, as a "term" she has made up. Either way again, it is irrelevant to the edit. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 21:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh I don't blame you, ArielGold. If this was a discussion of a normal person doing normal stuff that would be fine. But McCarthy worked hard to rebrand her antivax bullshit in 2014-2016 so she could get and keep a job on The View, after a disastrous early run-in as a guest. So the uncritical PBS piece is actually WP:UNDUE - but you have to be familiar with the antivax world to realise it, and most people are blissfully unaware of the details of that cesspit. I know you're trying to be decet here. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Moors murders

Hello, why the need for the heightened protection? CassiantoTalk 06:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: You applied full protection at Moors murders. Was that intentional? BTW yet another case of bear-poking followed by unwise escalation is at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Edit war between established editors. As if that wasn't obvious and stated. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Diffs please, as there's been no warring for at least four days now. CassiantoTalk 17:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it three days? At any rate, the full protection came over three days since the last revert in the edit war. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I count five days, as of today - 12 August. The last revert was on 7 August. Protection was added on the 11 August which is four days after the last revert. Am I missing something? CassiantoTalk 07:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

CMTBard

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CMTBard --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Information icon Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at WP:AN. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. This isn't cool. There's no need to change someone else's comments. Please don't do that. It only inflames matters. Buffs (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You are an absurd person. Go away. Guy (Help!) 07:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

absurd?

Try this. I SP'd a certain page for 3 days and was accused of defaming that certain someone.-- Dlohcierekim 02:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, you got mail. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Now I understand...

...what you meant about KC. Thank you. Atsme Talk 📧 15:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. A huge proportion of the ailments dogs get are down to breed standards and inbreeding to achieve them. Crossbreeds tend to be a lot healthier. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
This is why Royal Families tend to end up with a load of chinless idiots.... Too much cousin marrying. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Royal families have this in common with the Bible Belt. It is not good in either case. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Ha!! Deliverance. I wouldn't call that the Bible Belt, although it is in that region. Atsme Talk 📧 20:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Discothèque

FORD: But there aren't any real people here at all!

ZAPHOD: So, what's new?

There used to be a company named Iconovate Limited, number 05149045. It was dissolved in 2007 according to public records, and this name matches neither of its directors. I believe that the person is a fabrication, although the account name as the company would (I assert) still be unacceptable even if there not the sockpuppetry. There is a real Kevin Andrew Moon, completely unconnected as I said, and using xyr name for a sockpuppet connected to an old company is not on.

I await your rename of Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement to Wikipedia:Conflictofundisclosedinterestpaidonsocks.

Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nelamm

You have twice reverted edits I made to simply make a page more understandable. You said I contributed an "unreliable" source. I actually explained my use of this source (it is the source of the news of the page itself), but to avoid conflict I removed the reference and statement entirely. You also said I removed a reliable source. The only source I removed was to a non-existent link that had no place with my edits in any event. You added a threat to block me from editing, which I frankly find bewildering as my efforts are uncontroversial and all in good faith. I would of course prefer a more direct way of communicating so we can work this out. Nelamm (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You twice removed reliable sources and added unreliable ones. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The second time was a revert so that I could recover the edited version I had posted and then make the fixes you requested, which I did. In any event, both here and there I provided reasons for doing each.Nelamm (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
You've got 116 edits over 13 years, you probably don't realise how we've changed our approach to unreliable sources. Guy (Help!) 05:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Death of a Nation

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Death of a Nation (2018 film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

There are two sources already:

  • " ...the movie has been roasted by actual historians and film critics, who point to the many misrepresentations and falsehoods littered throughout the film."
  • "Numerous journalists and historians such as Kevin M. Kruse and Heather Cox Richardson have exposed D’Souza’s falsehoods..."

Both of these indicate a collective response. Neither of them say "propaganda". You cannot take a single review and claim that all these people are calling it propaganda. That is in violation of WP:SYN. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Erik Or, you could wait 30 seconds while I roll in more sources, which is what I am doing. You don't own the article. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Self-published books

I don't have much time but if you hit resistance you can let me know. --Doug Weller talk 14:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Appreciated, thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Mohamad Barakat

I strongly object to your circumvention of wikipedia rules on draftification, which, as I pointed out at the Administrators' Noticeboard, by wikipedia rules should not be abused to circumvent a deletion discussion. Please use the article talk page constructively rather than deleting relevant content based on high quality reliable sources without proper justification and then claiming an article lacks sources. Omikroergosum (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I strongly object to your systematic violation of our policy on biographies. Guy (Help!) 06:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I strongly object to your use of different names that obscures the fact that you are acting on a case in which you are accused of abusing admin powers yourself. Stop posting aggressive warnings and threats on good faith users who write well sources articles. If you have issues with an article, bring them up in a deletion discussion and at the very least on the article talk page. In this case the discussion twice came to the decision to speedily keep and a speedy deletion was reverted because as an administrator wrote the negative content is well sourced. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You are being rather silly. I strongly advise you to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. Even though I strongly disagree with you there is no need to call each other silly. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

What are your criteria for "Relies too much on references to primary sources" for articles on software applications?

On 21 August 2019 you put the {{Primary sources}} tag on the "Retrospect (software)" article. At that time the article had 17 secondary-source references and 13 primary-sources references. I've since then added two more secondary-source references, for a total of 19. That's based of a count of the entries in Retrospect (software)#References, not a count of the citations of those references.

The basic problem is that this is an article about a client-server backup software application with a 30-year history. One of the two references I just added says its newly-acquired single-application vendor has "half a million customers but skinny revenues". That may be counting customers still using older versions of the application under perpetual licenses, because those versions just keep on working so long as you don't need new features (my friend has just re-started using Retrospect Mac 6.1 to back up 3 HDDs on one of his machines, because Retrospect Mac 16 eliminated this year the "backup server's" ability to use the 32-bit-API Client that works for Motorola PowerPC—not Intel—Macs whose processor architecture became obsolete in 2006). There haven't been any reviews of the Windows variant since 2012, but one independent Mac news source publishes a new review at least for every once-a-year new major version.

The article does cite three primary-source references at least 10 times each, but that's because the article from the third section on consists of a very compact list of application features. Secondary-source reviews simply don't mention all of the features of a software application; for those a Wikipedia editor must fall back on the primary-source application manuals and knowledge-base articles.

What must I do to justify removing the tag? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove anything that's sourced to their own websites or to press releases. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Read the second paragraph in my section-starting comment. Then look at the "NetBackup" and "Backup Exec" articles, which are about competing client-server backup applications. Those articles have the same problem, but haven't been tagged for "Relies too much on references to primary sources". Why was the "Retrospect" article singled out; is it because you're a friend of Scope_creep? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wikipedia is not for PR. Your conspiracy theory is trivially dispproven from my edit history. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
First, the "Retrospect (software)" article is not PR in the sense that WP:OTHERSTUFF discusses. The notability of its subject is demonstrated by referenced up-through-2019 reviews of the software on the Mac-related TidBITS.com website and referenced reviews up through 2012 on Windows-related websites.
Second, I didn't mean to imply a conspiracy. It's perfectly legitimate for you to be merely a friend of Scope_creep, since you evidently share at least the second of his idiosyncratic interpretations of Wikipedia rules. Here's a diff approximation of "'Advertising' and 'marketing' terms in Retrospect, and other disputed matters" section that approximates the section of the "Retrospect (software)" Talk page I linked to in what is now this archived 3RR discussion. (Because of subsequent clarifying re-arrangement of the Talk page involving movement of comments out of their date sequence, it is only an approximation of the section I directly linked to earlier in the discussion; ignore any comments in the preceding section and in the subsequent "'Favorite Folder'" section and its "Consensus" sub-section.) Note that scope_creep is operating under two "off-the-wall" misconceptions about Wikipedia rules: The first misconception is that the use of a product name in itself is advertising, marketing or public relations. The second misconception is that "it is not acceptable to use branded language", by which he means "refer[ring] back to the language used in the [user] manual [for a piece of software], instead of searching for a term on WP"—by which in turn he means "text that had been copied wholesale from the Retrospect manual" as he says in his 10:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC) comment in the 3RR discussion. If scope_creep really wants to follow through on his first misconception, he should delete all 32 main-text mentions of the phrase "Time Machine" from the "Time Machine (macOS)" article—because "Time Machine" is a term thought up by marketing people (almost certainly including Steve Jobs) at Apple. If he really wants to follow through on his second misconception, he should delete 8 links in the "Windows 10" article—even though the first 7 of the links are in the infobox (which after all is not entitled to a special "PR here is OK" exemption). I simply found it an interesting coincidence that you added the {{Primary sources}} tag to the "Retrospect (software)" article on exactly the same day I added the comment to the 3RR discussion that identified the article as the one of mine Scope_creep had rather-imprecisely spoken of earlier in the 3RR discussion. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
It's really quite simple. Only include reliable independent secondary soruces. Don't include anything that independent commentators haven't thought significant enotgh to cover. Don't inlcude sources that are obviously based on press releases (aka churnalism). Don't include WP:HOWTO or other manual-like content. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Guy: -- @DovidBenAvraham: It has been two and a half years now since since I stopped working on the Retrospect article. Anything happening in the present has nothing to do with me. So can you please stop dropping my name everywhere. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 11:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Julian day

I reverted your edit to Julian day, not because I don't agree with you (I do) but because you have gone the wrong way about it. MOS:ERA says that the era style in use should not be changed unless there is a consensus to do so and the alternative era is more appropriate. So you need to raise a formal WP:RFC and give the evidence that a substantial majority of astronomers writing in English use this style. Plus any other reasoning you can think may be relevant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that I'm trying to teach grandmother to suck eggs. Oh well... --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Heh! Got a couple of edits under my belt, I think I know how the game is played. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

AN and Jack Sebastian

Can you please undo your closure? Just because Jack is blocked for one week doesn't mean the discussion about his behavior should end. I was going to suggest returning to the issue of the topic ban suggested by Acroterion and possibly a longer block for his apparent cluelessness about his own passive/aggressive behavior. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, there's an unsigned reply of his to me. The unsigned template should be used. Clovermoss (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Anyone can, in fact - I am not precious about these things, just trying to reduce the pile-on-fest. But it looks like it has a good reason to run. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Agile and data science

Hi User Talk:JzG Ok, no problems. No, no, no, I am NOT affiliated with Agile Alliance at all. I have suggested on the Talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Agile_software_development on renaming the article. Could you please retain the criticism on agile on data science edit I did? Seems like you reverted entire edits. That criticism should be fine with the current article. Thank you. mcyp (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

ACCOBAMS

I managed to find a few other sources that list the States Parties to the Agreement. They are as follow:

  • SOURCE 1: This Source comes from the website of the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, which is maintained, in part, by the United Nations Environment Programme
  • SOURCE 2: This Source is an academic paper from the journal Marine Policy 82 (2007), the list can be found in Table 1 on pg. 100
  • SOURCE 3: This Source is from the Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas. It is a copy of United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan report. The list can be found in Appendix 1

Are any of these sources acceptable? – Jesuiseduardo (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_169"